PARALYSIS OF THE SCIATIC NERVE

Summary

The veteran, who served in the United States Army from February 1982 to May 1992, appeals the rating decision for his service-connected left and right lower extremity sciatic radiculopathy and seeks to reopen previously denied claims for service connection for neck, left ankle, and right ankle disabilities. The veteran had previously been granted service connection for a lumbar spine disability based on in-service injury and pain. The Board reviewed the evidence, including the veteran's statements detailing pain and numbness in his lower extremities since developing the lumbar spine condition, and multiple VA examinations. The examinations noted decreased sensation and positive straight leg raising tests bilaterally, with varying degrees of pain and numbness reported. The Board found that the evidence supported a 40 percent rating for each lower extremity radiculopathy, analogous to moderately severe incomplete paralysis, resolving doubt in the veteran's favor. The Board also granted service connection for the neck and bilateral ankle disabilities, finding that while service treatment records did not show pre-existing issues, the veteran's in-service injury related to parachute jumps was conceded, and his lay statements regarding continuity of symptoms were competent and credible. The Board found the evidence persuasive for these claims, granting service connection for the neck and bilateral ankle disabilities.

Rationale

Evidence supports 40 percent rating for left lower extremity sciatic radiculopathy.; Resolving doubt in veteran's favor.; No evidence of marked muscular atrophy for higher rating.

Full Decision Text

Citation Nr: A26040027
Decision Date: 04/29/26	Archive Date: 04/29/26

DOCKET NO. 251102-616629
DATE: April 29, 2026

ORDER

Entitlement to an initial disability rating of 40 percent, but no higher, for left lower extremity sciatic radiculopathy, associated with service-connected lumbar spine disability, is granted.  

Entitlement to an initial disability rating of 40 percent, but no higher, for right lower extremity sciatic radiculopathy, associated with service-connected lumbar spine disability, is granted.  

Entitlement to service connection for a neck disability is granted.  

Entitlement to service connection for a left ankle disability is granted.  

Entitlement to service connection for a right ankle disability is granted.  

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Throughout the appeal period, the Veteran's left lower extremity sciatic radiculopathy resulted in no more than moderately severe incomplete paralysis.  

2. Throughout the appeal period, the Veteran's right lower extremity sciatic radiculopathy resulted in no more than moderately severe incomplete paralysis.  

3. The Veteran's neck disability began during active service and has been continuous since separation from service.  

4. The Veteran's left ankle disability began during active service and has been continuous since separation from service.  

5. The Veteran's right ankle disability began during active service and has been continuous since separation from service.  

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. The criteria for entitlement to an initial rating of 40 percent, but no higher, for service-connected left lower extremity sciatic radiculopathy have been met.  38 U.S.C. § § 1155, 5107; 38 C.F.R. § § 4.1, 4.3, 4.7, 4.124a, Diagnostic Code 8520.  

2. The criteria for entitlement to an initial rating of 40 percent, but no higher, for service-connected right lower extremity sciatic radiculopathy have been met.  38 U.S.C. § § 1155, 5107; 38 C.F.R. § § 4.1, 4.3, 4.7, 4.124a, Diagnostic Code 8520.  

3. The criteria for establishing entitlement to service connection for a neck disability have been met.  38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303.  

4. The criteria for establishing entitlement to service connection for a left ankle disability have been met.  38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303.  

5. The criteria for establishing entitlement to service connection for a right ankle disability have been met.  38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303.  

?

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

Preliminary Matters

The Veteran had honorable active-duty service with the United States Army from February 1982 to May 1992.  

On August 23, 2017, the President signed into law the Veterans Appeals Improvement and Modernization Act, 131 Stat. 1105 (2017), also known as the Appeals Modernization Act (AMA).  

This matter is before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a March 2025 rating decision of a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO).  

By way of history, in an October 2024 rating decision, the RO granted entitlement to service connection for left lower extremity sciatic radiculopathy and right lower extremity sciatic radiculopathy and assigned a 10 percent disability rating for each, effective April 29, 2024.  

Then, in November 2024, the Veteran submitted VA Form 20-0995 (Decision Review Request: Supplemental Claim), appealing the initial disability ratings assigned for his service-connected left lower extremity sciatic radiculopathy and right lower extremity sciatic radiculopathy.  The Veteran also requested to reopen previously denied claims of entitlement to service connection for disabilities of the neck, left ankle, and right ankle.  

In a March 2025 Supplemental Claim rating decision, the RO, in pertinent part, increased each 10 percent rating to 20 percent, effective February 28, 2025.  The issues of entitlement to service connection for disabilities of the neck, left ankle
29, 2024.  

Then, in November 2024, the Veteran submitted VA Form 20-0995 (Decision Review Request: Supplemental Claim), appealing the initial disability ratings assigned for his service-connected left lower extremity sciatic radiculopathy and right lower extremity sciatic radiculopathy.  The Veteran also requested to reopen previously denied claims of entitlement to service connection for disabilities of the neck, left ankle, and right ankle.  

In a March 2025 Supplemental Claim rating decision, the RO, in pertinent part, increased each 10 percent rating to 20 percent, effective February 28, 2025.  The issues of entitlement to service connection for disabilities of the neck, left ankle, and right ankle were deferred.  

In an April 2025 Supplemental Claim rating decision, the RO denied the issues of entitlement to service connection for disabilities of the neck, left ankle, and right ankle.  

In November 2025, the Veteran filed VA Form 10182, Decision Review Request: Board Appeal (Notice of Disagreement (NOD)), appealing the ratings assigned for service-connected left lower extremity sciatic radiculopathy and right lower extremity sciatic radiculopathy in the March 2025 rating decision.  The Board notes that the Veteran also appealed the issues of entitlement ot service connection for disabilities of the neck, left ankle, and right ankle.  As these issues were deferred for further development, it was premature to appeal these issues noted in the March 2025 rating decision.  However, as noted above, an April 2025 rating decision denied these issues.  The Board liberally construes the November 2025, NOD as appealing the April 2025 rating decision concerning the service connection claims for disabilities of the neck, left ankle, and right ankle, which will permit the Board to take the most Veteran-friendly approach and consider the most developed record.  

The Board further notes that the Veteran identified rating decisions dated July 2016, September 2016, September 2024, and October 2024 as decisions being appealed.  As the respective appeal period for these rating decisions has lapsed, these decisions are ineligible for appeal; therefore, the issues of these decisions identified in the NOD will not be addressed by the Board.  

The Veteran elected the Evidence Submission docket.  Therefore, the Board may only consider the evidence of record at the time of the March 2025 and April 2025 Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) decisions on appeal, as well as any evidence submitted by the Veteran or his representative with, or within 90 days from receipt of, the VA Form 10182.  38 C.F.R. § 20.303.  If evidence was submitted either (1) during the period after the AOJ issued the decisions on appeal and prior to the date the Board received the VA Form 10182, or (2) more than 90 days following the date the Board received the VA Form 10182, the Board did not consider it in its decision.  38 C.F.R. §§ 20.300, 20.303, 20.801.  

If the Veteran would like VA to consider any evidence that was submitted that the Board could not consider, the Veteran may file a Supplemental Claim (VA Form 20-0995) and submit or identify this evidence.  38 C.F.R. § 3.2501.  If the evidence is new and relevant, VA will issue another decision on the claim, considering the new evidence in addition to the evidence previously considered.  Id.  Specific instructions for filing a Supplemental Claim are included following this decision.  

Increased Rating

Disability evaluations are determined by comparing the manifestations of a disability with the criteria set forth in the Diagnostic Codes of the Schedule for Rating Disabilities (Rating Schedule). 38 U.S.C. § 1155; 38 C.F.R. § Part 4.  The percentage ratings represent, as far as can practicably be determined, the average impairment in earning capacity (in civilian occupations) resulting from service-connected disability.  38 C.F.R. § 4.1.  

The evaluation of the same disability under various diagnoses is to be avoided.  38 C.F.R. § 4.14.  However, separate ratings may be assigned to different conditions if they do not constitute the same disability or manifestation thereof.  See 38 C.F.R. § 4.14; Esteban v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 259, 261 (1994).  

When there is a question as to which of two evaluations shall be applied, the higher evaluation will be assigned if the disability picture more nearly approximates the criteria for that rating; otherwise, the lower rating will be assigned.
 from service-connected disability.  38 C.F.R. § 4.1.  

The evaluation of the same disability under various diagnoses is to be avoided.  38 C.F.R. § 4.14.  However, separate ratings may be assigned to different conditions if they do not constitute the same disability or manifestation thereof.  See 38 C.F.R. § 4.14; Esteban v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 259, 261 (1994).  

When there is a question as to which of two evaluations shall be applied, the higher evaluation will be assigned if the disability picture more nearly approximates the criteria for that rating; otherwise, the lower rating will be assigned.  38 C.F.R. § 4.7.  

When after careful consideration of all procurable and assembled data, a reasonable doubt arises regarding the degree of disability, such doubt shall be resolved in favor of the claimant.  38 C.F.R. § 4.3.  

A schedular rating may be increased if there is objective evidence during examination or treatment of functional loss exceeding that fixed by a schedular rating.  See DeLuca v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 202, 206 (1995); Mitchell v Shinseki, 25 Vet. App. 32 (2011); see also 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.40, 4.45, 4.59.

Separate ratings may be assigned for separate periods of time based on the facts found, a practice known as "staged" ratings. 38 C.F.R. § 4.2.  The effective date for a staged rating is when it is factually ascertainable that a particular rating is warranted. Hart v. Mansfield, 21 Vet. App. 505, 509 (2007).  

The Board has considered all the evidence of record as it bears on the issues before it.  Although the Board has an obligation to provide reasons and bases supporting these decisions, there is no need to discuss, in detail, the extensive evidence of record.  The Federal Circuit has held that the Board must review the entire record but does not have to discuss each piece of evidence.  Gonzales v. West, 218 F.3d 1378, 1380-81 (Fed. Cir. 2000).  

1. Entitlement to an initial disability rating of 40 percent, but no higher, for left lower extremity sciatic radiculopathy, associated with service-connected lumbar spine disability, is granted.  

See discussion in Paragraph 2

2. Entitlement to an initial disability rating of 40 percent, but no higher, for right lower extremity sciatic radiculopathy, associated with service-connected lumbar spine disability, is granted.  

The Veteran seeks higher initial ratings for his left lower extremity and right lower extremity sciatic radiculopathy.  The Veteran's left lower extremity and right lower extremity sciatic radiculopathy have each been rated at 10 percent from April 29, 2024, and 20 percent from February 28, 2025, under Diagnostic Code 8520, paralysis of the sciatic nerve, throughout the period on appeal.  38 C.F.R. § 4.124a.  

Under Diagnostic Code 8520, mild incomplete paralysis warrants a 10 percent rating.  Moderate incomplete paralysis warrants a 20 percent rating.  Moderately severe incomplete paralysis warrants a 40 percent rating.  Severe incomplete paralysis, with marked muscular atrophy warrants a 60 percent rating.  Complete paralysis, where the foot dangles and drops, no active movement is possible of muscles below the knee, and flexion of knee is weakened or (very rarely) lost, warrants an 80 percent rating.  

The words "mild," "moderate," "moderately severe", and "severe" as used in the various diagnostic codes are not defined in the Rating Schedule.  Regulations provide that ratings for peripheral neurological disorders are to be assigned based on the relative impairment of motor function, trophic changes, or sensory disturbance.  38 C.F.R. § 4.120.  Consideration is also given for loss of reflexes, pain, and muscle atrophy.  See 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.123, 4.124.  In addition, the use of similar terminology by medical professionals should be considered but is not dispositive of the issue.  Instead, all evidence must be evaluated in arriving at a decision regarding a request for an increased disability rating.  38 U.S.C. § 7104; 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.2, 4.6.  

Although VA's Ad
 assigned based on the relative impairment of motor function, trophic changes, or sensory disturbance.  38 C.F.R. § 4.120.  Consideration is also given for loss of reflexes, pain, and muscle atrophy.  See 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.123, 4.124.  In addition, the use of similar terminology by medical professionals should be considered but is not dispositive of the issue.  Instead, all evidence must be evaluated in arriving at a decision regarding a request for an increased disability rating.  38 U.S.C. § 7104; 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.2, 4.6.  

Although VA's Adjudication Procedures Manual (M21-1) is not binding on the Board, the standards provided in the M21-1 are relevant guidance promulgated for the purpose of facilitating the efficient and proper resolution of claims.  The Board must consider and address the relevant standards provided in the M21-1 as part of its duty to provide a reasoned explanation for its decision.  Chavis, 34 Vet. App. at 17-18 (citing Healy v. McDonough, 33 Vet. App. 312 (2021) and Overton v. Wilkie, 30 Vet. App. 257, 264 (2018)).  The M21-1 includes helpful descriptors of the different levels of severity set forth in the Schedule's ratings for diseases of the peripheral nerve.  In the absence of more clear definitions in the regulations, the Board will use the M21-1's descriptors as guidance in rating the Veteran's service-connected left lower extremity radiculopathy.  

The M21-1 provides that "mild" is the default evaluation assigned based on the symptoms, however slight, as long as they were sufficient to support a diagnosis of the peripheral nerve impairment.  In general, the rater should look for a disability limited to sensory deficits that are lower graded, less persistent, or affecting a small area.  A very minimal reflex or motor abnormality potentially could also be consistent with mild incomplete paralysis.  

"Moderate" is the maximum evaluation available for the most significant cases of sensory-only impairment and is characterized by symptoms described by the claimant and medically graded as significantly disabling and involving a larger area in the nerve distribution.  Other sign or symptom combinations that may fall into the moderate category include combinations of significant sensory changes and reflex or motor changes of a lower degree, or motor and/or reflex impairment such as weakness or diminished or hyperactive reflexes (with or without sensory impairment) graded as medically moderate. 

"Moderately severe" is the maximum rating for sciatic nerve neuritis not characterized by the organic changes specified in 38 C.F.R. § 4.123.  It is characterized by motor and/or reflex impairment (for example, weakness or diminished or hyperactive reflexes) at a grade reflecting a high level of limitation or disability is expected.  In addition, atrophy may be present.  

"Severe" is characterized by motor and/or reflex impairment (for example, atrophy, weakness, or diminished or hyperactive reflexes) at a grade reflecting a very high level of limitation or disability.  Trophic changes may be seen in severe long-standing neuropathy cases.  Although severe incomplete paralysis cases should show findings substantially less than those for complete impairment of the nerve, the disability picture for severe incomplete paralysis may contain signs or symptoms that resemble some of those expected in cases of complete paralysis of the nerve.  Neuritis characterized by loss of reflexes, muscle atrophy, sensory disturbances, and constant pain should be rated as high as severe incomplete paralysis of the nerve.  

The term "incomplete paralysis" indicates a degree of lost or impaired function substantially less than the type of picture for complete paralysis given with each nerve, whether due to varied level of the nerve lesion or to partial regeneration.  When the involvement is wholly sensory, the rating is for the mild, or at most, the moderate degree.  The disability ratings for the peripheral nerves are for unilateral involvement; when bilateral, the ratings combine with application of the bilateral factor.  38 C.F.R. § 4.124a, Note at "Diseases of the Peripheral Nerves."  The Note to 38 C.F.R. § 4.124a establishes a maximum disability rating for conditions that are wholly sensory, as opposed to a minimum disability rating for conditions that are more than wholly sensory.  See Miller v. Shulkin, 28 Vet. App. 376 (2017).  

Turning to the evidence of record, in an April 2024 statement, the Veteran stated that after he developed his service-connected lumbar spine condition, he began to experience numbness, tingling, and pain in
 involvement; when bilateral, the ratings combine with application of the bilateral factor.  38 C.F.R. § 4.124a, Note at "Diseases of the Peripheral Nerves."  The Note to 38 C.F.R. § 4.124a establishes a maximum disability rating for conditions that are wholly sensory, as opposed to a minimum disability rating for conditions that are more than wholly sensory.  See Miller v. Shulkin, 28 Vet. App. 376 (2017).  

Turning to the evidence of record, in an April 2024 statement, the Veteran stated that after he developed his service-connected lumbar spine condition, he began to experience numbness, tingling, and pain in his left and right lower extremities that continued to the present.  He stated, "I frequently experience numbness and aching on the left side of my lower back to my thigh and shooting pain and numbness on the right side from my lower back to my thigh."  He indicated that he experienced flare-ups of these conditions several times a week, which typically lasted a day.  He tried to limit movements that caused his symptoms to worsen, such as bending forward, twisting to the right, and twisting to the left.  He further indicated that pain from these conditions made it difficult for him to do certain everyday activities, like prolonged sitting, prolonged standing, prolonged walking, lying still without regularly adjusting position, long car rides, doing yard work, sports, running/jogging, and using stairs.  

On VA examination for the back in May 2024, the Veteran reported that he started having back pain in 1988, which progressively became worse.  He described the pain as "sharp back pain".  As noted above in his April 2024 statement, the Veteran stated that after he developed his service-connected lumbar spine condition, he began to experience numbness, tingling, and pain in his left and right lower extremities that continued to the present.  The examiner was unable to perform straight leg raising test, as the Veteran anticipated pain.  The examiner indicated mild intermittent pain and mild numbness in the bilateral lower extremities.  No muscle atrophy was found.  

On VA examination for the back in September 2024, the examiner provided diagnoses of lumbosacral strain and bilateral lower extremity radiculopathy.  The Veteran reported a sharp to dull pain in his back that occurred daily and lasted all day.  The examiner noted the severity as severe.  As noted above in his April 2024 statement, the Veteran indicated that the pain from his back radiated down to his legs.  The examiner noted decreased sensation in the bilateral thighs/knees, lower legs/ankles, and feet/toes.  Straight leg raising tests were positive bilaterally.  The examiner indicated moderate intermittent pain and moderate numbness in the bilateral lower extremities.  No muscle atrophy was found.  

On VA examination for the back in February 2025, the Veteran reported persistent achy sensation with radiating pain from his back into his legs.  He further reported occasional shooting pain, as well as numbness and tingling into his lower legs.  Treatment included Ibuprofen, Gabapentin, and Methocarbamol.  The examiner noted decreased sensation in the bilateral upper anterior thighs, thighs/knees, and lower legs/ankles.  Straight leg raising tests were positive bilaterally.  The examiner indicated severe intermittent pain, severe paresthesias and/or dysesthesias, and severe numbness in the bilateral lower extremities.  No muscle atrophy was found.  

Based upon the evidence of record set forth above, the Board finds that a disability rating of 40 percent, but no higher, for each service-connected disability is warranted.  To this end, the Board notes that the evidence shows objective neurological symptoms that support a disability rating analogous to moderately severe incomplete paralysis of the sciatic nerve of each lower extremity such that a 40 percent rating is most closely approximated for each lower extremity.  As noted above, throughout the appeal period, the Veteran has consistently reported weakness, numbness, and tingling of the bilateral lower extremities.  The medical evidence shows that the severity level stayed consistent throughout the appeal period.  Although the May 2024 VA examiner indicated mild intermittent pain and mild numbness in the bilateral lower extremities, the examiner noted that she was unable to perform straight leg raising test, as the Veteran anticipated pain, which suggests a severe level of pain, resulting in forgoing the testing.  Also, although the September 2024 VA examiner indicated moderate intermittent pain and moderate numbness in the bilateral lower extremities, a severe severity level was noted for the pain in his back that radiated down to his legs.  During the February 2025 VA examination,
 Veteran has consistently reported weakness, numbness, and tingling of the bilateral lower extremities.  The medical evidence shows that the severity level stayed consistent throughout the appeal period.  Although the May 2024 VA examiner indicated mild intermittent pain and mild numbness in the bilateral lower extremities, the examiner noted that she was unable to perform straight leg raising test, as the Veteran anticipated pain, which suggests a severe level of pain, resulting in forgoing the testing.  Also, although the September 2024 VA examiner indicated moderate intermittent pain and moderate numbness in the bilateral lower extremities, a severe severity level was noted for the pain in his back that radiated down to his legs.  During the February 2025 VA examination, consistent with his previous statements, the Veteran reported persistent achy sensation with radiating pain from his back into his legs.  He further reported occasional shooting pain, as well as numbness and tingling into his lower legs.  The examiner indicated severe intermittent pain, severe paresthesias and/or dysesthesias, and severe numbness in the bilateral lower extremities.  Thus, based on the foregoing, the Board resolves reasonable doubt in the Veteran's favor and finds that he is entitled to increased 40 percent ratings for the left lower extremity and right lower extremity during the entire appeal period.  

The Board further finds that the evidence is persuasively against a conclusion that the criteria for the next-higher 60 percent disability rating for left lower extremity sciatic radiculopathy and right lower extremity sciatic radiculopathy was met at any time during the appeal period.  Although there is evidence in the record of severe symptoms of the bilateral lower extremities, there is no evidence of marked muscular atrophy accompanying those symptoms.  Indeed, the examiners of record found the Veteran had no muscle atrophy.  

The Board has also considered Ingram v. Collins, 38 Vet. App. 130 (2025), which held that when evaluating musculoskeletal disabilities where the relevant diagnostic code does not reference medication use, the Board must discount beneficial medication effects and evaluate the baseline severity of each disability. Here, the medical evidence shows that the Veteran treated his bilateral lower extremities with medication during the appeal period.  The probative evidence of record, however, does not indicate that the Veteran's bilateral lower extremity condition manifested anywhere close to severe incomplete paralysis with marked muscular atrophy.  Indeed, the Veteran's lay contentions do not mention muscle atrophy or any similar symptoms.  The Board notes that even if the medication improved the Veteran's radicular symptoms, the record does not indicate any signs or findings of muscle atrophy, which is necessary for the assignment of a 60 percent rating for either lower extremity.  As such, the Board finds that there is no basis for a remand pursuant to Ingram.  

Accordingly, the Board finds that initial 40 percent ratings, but no higher, are warranted for the Veteran's service-connected left lower extremity sciatic radiculopathy and right lower extremity sciatic radiculopathy.  

Service Connection

Service connection may be granted for any injury or disease diagnosed after discharge, when all the evidence, including that pertinent to service, establishes that the disease or injury was incurred in service.  38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d).  Generally, to establish service connection, a veteran must show: "(1) the existence of a present disability; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship between the present disability and the disease or injury incurred or aggravated during service."  Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004).  

In addition, for certain chronic diseases, such as arthritis, a presumption of service connection arises if the chronic disease was shown as chronic in service; manifested to a compensable degree within one year following discharge from service; or was noted in service with continuity of symptomatology since service.  38 U.S.C. §§ 1112, 1113, 1131, 1133, 1137; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303(b), 3.307, 3.309(a); Walker v. Shinseki, 708 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2013).  

In rendering a decision on appeal, the Board must analyze the credibility and probative value of the evidence, account for the evidence which it finds to be persuasive or unpersuasive and provide the reasons for its rejection of any material evidence favorable to the veteran.  See Gabrielson v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 36, 39-40 (1994).  Board determinations with respect to the
1113, 1131, 1133, 1137; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303(b), 3.307, 3.309(a); Walker v. Shinseki, 708 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2013).  

In rendering a decision on appeal, the Board must analyze the credibility and probative value of the evidence, account for the evidence which it finds to be persuasive or unpersuasive and provide the reasons for its rejection of any material evidence favorable to the veteran.  See Gabrielson v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 36, 39-40 (1994).  Board determinations with respect to the weight and credibility of evidence are factual determinations going to the probative value of the evidence. Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465, 469 (1994).  Equal weight is not accorded to each piece of evidence contained in the record; not every item of evidence has the same probative value.  

Competency of evidence differs from weight and credibility.  Competency is a legal concept determining whether testimony may be heard and considered by the trier of fact, while credibility is a factual determination going to the probative value of the evidence to be made after the evidence has been admitted.  Layno, 6 Vet. App. at 465.  Lay statements may serve to support a claim for service connection by supporting the occurrence of lay-observable events or the presence of disability or symptoms of disability subject to lay observation.  38 C.F.R. § 3.159; see Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007).  

When all the evidence is assembled, VA is responsible for determining whether the evidence supports the claim or is in approximate balance, with a veteran prevailing in either event, or whether the evidence weighs persuasively against a claim, in which case, the claim is denied.  38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102.  

3. Entitlement to service connection for a neck disability is granted.  

See discussion in Paragraph 5

4. Entitlement to service connection for a left ankle disability is granted.  

See discussion in Paragraph 5

5. Entitlement to service connection for a right ankle disability is granted.  

The Veteran seeks entitlement to service connection for disabilities of the neck, left ankle, and right ankle.  The Veteran asserts that his neck and bilateral ankle pain began during service as a result of performing parachute jumps.  See April 2024 Veteran statements (VA Form 21-4138).  Specifically, the Veteran asserts that the demands on the body, specifically his joints, resulted in constant pain.  See id.  The Veteran's military personnel records confirm that he received the Parachutist Badge.  Significantly, the Board notes that the Veteran has already been service connected for a back disability based on the same assertions of pain and relevant injury in service that he is alleging is also the source of his disabilities of the neck, left ankle, and right ankle.  See September 1993 rating decision.  Thus, the Veteran's in-service injury/event has been conceded.  

Initially, the Board notes that the Veteran's service treatment records do not reflect that the Veteran had any problems related to the neck or ankles upon entry into active service.  

Favorable findings from the April 2025 decision on appeal include current diagnoses of cervical fusion of C5-C6 with degenerative disc disease, degenerative arthritis, and IVDS, as well as left ankle strain and right ankle strain.  The Board is bound by these favorable findings of the April 2025 decision.  38 C.F.R. § 3.104(c).  Thus, the first element of service connection has been met for each claimed disability.  

Second, as established above, the Veteran's in-service injury/event has been conceded.  Thus, the second element of service connection has also been met for each claimed disability.  

Lastly, turning to the nexus prong, the Board acknowledges that the record does not include positive opinions linking the Veteran's neck, left ankle, and right ankle disabilities to service.  However, the Board finds that the weight of the evidence is in favor of a finding that the Veteran's disabilities of the neck, left ankle, and right ankle began during service and have persisted since that time.  In favor of finding a nexus, the Board again notes that the Veteran has been service connected for a back disability based on the same assertions of pain and relevant injury in service that he is alleging is also the source of his disabilities of the neck, left ankle, and right ankle.  Thus, the third element of service connection has
 claimed disability.  

Lastly, turning to the nexus prong, the Board acknowledges that the record does not include positive opinions linking the Veteran's neck, left ankle, and right ankle disabilities to service.  However, the Board finds that the weight of the evidence is in favor of a finding that the Veteran's disabilities of the neck, left ankle, and right ankle began during service and have persisted since that time.  In favor of finding a nexus, the Board again notes that the Veteran has been service connected for a back disability based on the same assertions of pain and relevant injury in service that he is alleging is also the source of his disabilities of the neck, left ankle, and right ankle.  Thus, the third element of service connection has also been met for each claimed disability.  

To the extent that the grant of service connection in this matter is based primarily on lay evidence, "nothing in the regulatory or statutory provisions [relating to evidence to be considered] require both medical and competent lay evidence; rather, they make clear that competent lay evidence can be sufficient in and of itself."?  Buchanan v. Nicholson, 451 F.3d 1331, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2006).  

Moreover, the record reflects that the Veteran's disabilities of the neck, left ankle, and right ankle did not exist prior to service.  In addition, the competent and credible statements, as discussed above, show that the Veteran's disabilities of the neck, left ankle, and right ankle began during active service and continued post-service.  As noted in the preceding paragraph, the Veteran is certainly competent to testify to symptomatology such as chronic pain.  

Although a remand for further medical opinions could be accomplished, the Board will not remand for negative evidence.  The Board finds that the approximate balance of the evidence is for the claims.  

Accordingly, after resolving all doubt in favor of the Veteran, the Board finds that service connection for a neck disability, left ankle disability, and right ankle disability is warranted.  38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102.  

 

 

Christopher Seppanen

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board	Y. MacDonald, Counsel

The Board's decision in this case is binding only with respect to the instant matter decided. This decision is not precedential and does not establish VA policies or interpretations of general applicability. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1303.